Beam weapons

Well work on star wars is science fiction aspect does really matter. It's really a western in space.

For the last time you can't have tall turrets that shoot beam lasers! The larger the planet, the further they could shoot. On small planets they would be extremely underpowered and on large planets extremely overpowered.

Laser anti-missile defenses would not only be awesome, but realistic as well (they actually exist).

Regarding the whole plasma thing... Do you know what plasma actually is? Well quite a few things are called plasma, but it's the 4th state of matter. If you heat something enough it will turn into plasma. Google the Tokamak reactor. It has plasma in it suspended by magnets because no material can hold up against the heat (sound familiar?)

On a side note, you can't see laser beams if they don't hit something.

I don't see why people say they don't work, weapons with totally flat firing angles have been in every game in the
'series.' Anyone who's built a Cerberus on more than 2 maps will know that positioning of beam weapons is important to take into consideration. I think the tradeoff of limited effective range on small planets and inability to shoot over obstacles is fair for not being able to miss when they have a clear shot.

Not when that unit is being used for balance in anyway.

Then having it's performance change so drastically based on the size of a planet makes it unreliable.

You haven't even understood the thread, you might want to cool it a bit and maybe read what it is you are replying to before getting huffy.

Not once has anyone in this thread brought up any kind of change to the ranges of any of these weapons.
This thread is suggesting an aesthetic change only. No matter how the lasers look, they will still only target units in their suitably balanced range.

I never said they should BEHAVE like real lasers, i just want them to be beams instead of bolts wherever it wont harm balance. Nothing else.

The range difference comes from what lasers are: focused beams of light.

Range with projectile weapons is determined by their velocity, mass and drag. Range of laser weapons is infinite. Lasers only stop if they hit something.
Therefore the range of lasers comes from the curvature of the planet they're on and their height. Bigger planet -> less severe curvature -> more range. Also, laser turrets would have more AA range than AG range.

I prefer bolts.

Anyway, what's wrong with curved beams?

Basically: laser = energy -> has no mass -> cannot fall and curve around the planet.

Nothing as long as it makes sense universe wise.

It makes me grind my teeth! Grrr hissss!

However, id like to propose the idea of a more flamy plasma stream as a kind of 'beam' weapon.

Actually, laser range is directly effected by diffusion and accuracy. For a laser to damage the target it's not enough to hit the target, it needs to remain focused on the same spot on the target. That becomes more difficult at longer ranges. Diffusion also results in the laser having a wider focus area, but much less pinpoint energy transfer. Between both you end up with the whole target getting warm, but no one spot hot enough to be damaged.

I am not talking about reality, and neither is this game. The artillery in this game fires high enough to escape into space but it doesn't, why? Because programming.

If a laser tower is programmed not to fire at things further than X units away from itself, that's how it will behave.
You are not discussing the matter at hand, I will repeat it:

I am suggesting an aesthetic change (in case you dont know what that means, it means "appearances only") to laser weapons. No changes to damage are to be discussed here. No changes to their ability to fire at aircraft are to be discussed here. No change to ranges are to be discussed here. No change to their ability to function in different environments is to be discussed here.

This thread is about the appearances of the laser weapons. That is all.

It is would be perfectly reliable on how it performs on that planet.
I think it is fine if balance changes on different planets as long as it follows some consistent and intuitive rules.

Light curves around massive objects. Why else would light not escape a black hole?

True, it would be less intense and it would need to be aimed perfectly.
On a planet though, if the beam was properly focused and aimed, which is something super advanced robots from the future would probably be able to do, it could be an effective weapon.

@Macitar I know it's an aesthethic change and I know what that means, but you need to inderstand that unrealistic doesn't mean completely throwing out realism. It's a sci-fi game, everything is explained by advanced technology, but it can't stop the laws of physics. Not because you can't make it, but because it'd just look weird. The exception is if you can't do it any other way like having a planet with 250m radius with enough gravity for tanks to drive on it.

How about a bot walking on water? Or an artillery shell stopping in mid air and falling? Same goes for curving lasers.

@Godde That's a good point and if we ever get black holes in PA I won't mind lasers curving around it It has more to do with the black hole's gravity than its size though.

Im not sure why this is so hard for people to digest. The only weapons i am suggesting be converted to beams are ones that already do fire in straight lines and are already artificially limited by their range values. An umbrella should be able to swat orbital units from horizon to horizon, whats stopping it? A laser tower should already be able to hit things anywhere in its line of sight. All units abide by their ranges, not the likely physics of their weaponry. Im talking about changes to graphics of existing laser bolts to beams instead. How does this alter the believability of the units when they already are laser weapons?

Because firing through terrain is dumb, and curved beams stretch credulity overmuch.

I agree that super advanced robots could build a helluvagood laser, but I was specifically countering the "only stop if they hit something" It's a half truth. Diffusion is the result of hitting the air (or interstellar hydrogen in space) combined with any natural flaws in the focus itself. The in a truly perfect vacuum with photons fired in perfect parallel you could hit a theoretical infinite range, but no place in the observed universe fits those conditions.

That said, I do think super advanced robots could easily build a laser capable of engaging targets at extreme distances, even several light hours away, maybe even light weeks. In space you can hit a target with a very diffused laser and you will still add heat to the target. If you have enough power behind your laser you can add heat faster than they can shed it, and can destroy it over a span of hours or days. If the target is so far away that they can fly out of the path of the beam before over heating, then you simply need to diffuse it so much that leaving the width of the beam would take longer than it takes for the beam to destroy the target. If everyone is moving at relativistic speeds (at these distances it's the only speed that makes sense) you would need a beam X light hours in radius. That's a stupid amount of power output, but I think super advanced robots could cover the surface of every planet and moon in a solar system with advanced reactors to power their ultimate mega death ray.

@Macitar The laser turrets in PA are "star wars" lasers. That's why they don't have unlimited range, or better put, they are "star wars" style lasers because they shouldn't have unlimited range.
Check my 1. post. I'm not talking about Umbrellas at all. I think they and orbital lasers should shoot laser beams.

I guess really the question is "On the smallest planet size would unit X's beam weapon have enough range to intersect the ground?"

If the answer is yes, that unit should not use a beam. If not, that unit may be a candidate for some really cool alternate art.